Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Another school shooting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    One "solution" to this issue that has been declared is that we should restrict gun purchases for those under 21 years of age. I am sorry, if we do not believe that people under the age of 21 are someone less capable of being fully responsible, thoughtful, law abiding citizens based on nothing more than their age, than we should not allow them to vote either.

    the 18 year old voting age is still a relatively recent development in this country. The rational for lowering it from 21 was the fact that the draft age was lowered to 18. The reasoning being that if they can be expected to be compelled into service, they should have the right to vote. Well, we have all but eliminated the draft, so I think it is time to raise the age back to 21, with an exception for those who opt to serve in the military.

    Otherwise, I do not believe that there should be any legal discrimination based on age beyond the age of 18. That includes the right to buy guns, they right to drink. Either 18 is old enough to fully exercise basic rights or not.
    In any state I've lived in for any length of time had a drinking age of 21. Even with cars you can't just go down and buy one and start driving around.I called my brother a gun nut and he responded by saying I own two guns and you call me a gun nut. I own 12 instruments and nobody calls me a musician. If you ever heard my brother play you wouldn't call him a musician either.I think states like Connecticut have made positive strides in the wake of Sandy Hook.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      So what's your point ? Historical cycle ?

      Are we to just enjoy the coming years of decay ?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEYwNeBD4Uk

      Or are we to try to stop them ?
      One solution was proposed in my previous post: Have groups that are not in a state of decay, ready to push out the old leadership before everything goes over the cliff. Take next November, for instance. Nancy and Chuck retire along with a few dozen others from both parties, and a new group of gov't. leadership takes over. Draining the swamp, with some unexpected swamp critters (who claimed to be reformers) leaving DC in the bargain.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        One solution was proposed in my previous post: Have groups that are not in a state of decay, ready to push out the old leadership before everything goes over the cliff. Take next November, for instance. Nancy and Chuck retire along with a few dozen others from both parties, and a new group of gov't. leadership takes over. Draining the swamp, with some unexpected swamp critters (who claimed to be reformers) leaving DC in the bargain.
        My God, chuckie and nancy retired long ago anyways, they're just hanging around embarrassing themselves now, it's sad.

        But what you propose sounds like a good possibility. I don't see these power hungry nuts (I'm talking all here) giving up power so easily though, ...do people ever want to give up power ? I've never seen it.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
          One "solution" to this issue that has been declared is that we should restrict gun purchases for those under 21 years of age. I am sorry, if we do not believe that people under the age of 21 are someone less capable of being fully responsible, thoughtful, law abiding citizens based on nothing more than their age, than we should not allow them to vote either.

          the 18 year old voting age is still a relatively recent development in this country. The rational for lowering it from 21 was the fact that the draft age was lowered to 18. The reasoning being that if they can be expected to be compelled into service, they should have the right to vote. Well, we have all but eliminated the draft, so I think it is time to raise the age back to 21, with an exception for those who opt to serve in the military.

          Otherwise, I do not believe that there should be any legal discrimination based on age beyond the age of 18. That includes the right to buy guns, they right to drink. Either 18 is old enough to fully exercise basic rights or not.
          I have to agree.

          If eighteen is considered old enough, mature enough to "consent to sexual activity" even act in porno, fight in wars & get killed etc. then what is the argument again for restricting gun purchases to 21 ? Seems pretty pointless anyways... what ? Are young people who are given guns by relatives all of a sudden going to be "lawbreakers" ? There are younger people all over America that have access too, or own some type of firearm. This age restriction deal will accomplish nothing .. it won't even make us "feel like we did something" ... unless we have a room temperature IQ

          Want to stop schools from being slaughter houses ? The solution is very simple.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • In the interest of saving the lives of children murdered by liberal fantasies of "gun free zones," we have someone proposing a solution that will work.

            FINALLY !!

            We know there are those that will hate this, they either;

            1. want more American children dead,

            or

            2. are beyond stupid and do not belong in ANY school for anything.

            --------------------------------------------------

            President Donald Trump on Wednesday called for concealed carry laws for teachers and ending gun-free school zones that triggered a strong debate within the audience at a White House listening session.

            "A teacher would have a concealed gun on them," Trump told more than 40 people in the State Dining Room. "They would go for special training.

            "They would be there — and you would no longer have a gun-free zone.

            "A gun-free zone to a maniac is, 'Let's go in and let's attack' — because bullets aren't coming back at us."

            Trump noted that, on average, a school shooting lasts about 3 minutes, with first responders generally arriving within as long as 8 minutes.

            "If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," the president said.

            ..

            One parent, Andrew Pollack, whose 18-year-old daughter, Meadow, was shot nine times at Stoneman, said that "we, as a country, failed our children.

            "This shouldn't happen.

            "We need to come together as a country and work on what is important," he said. "That is protecting our children in the schools.

            "That is the only thing that matters right now."

            President Trump acknowledged the comments, but his call for concealed carry and ending gun-free zones sparked a strong debate within the room.

            "I don't want the kids to know," Fred Abt, whose daughter, Carson, 17, is a Stoneman junior who survived the attack. "I don't want the shooters to know who has the firearms.

            "I don't want to have people walking around with firearms on the side.

            "But when they put the kids in the closets, I want the teacher to open that safe, pull out that firearm and be ready to do what needs to be done while you are waiting for the SWAT teams to come."

            Andrew Pollack Jr., Meadow's brother, who graduated from Stoneman in 2015, suggested enlisting retired police officers for "discreet" weapons training with teachers.

            But Curtis Lawrence, principal of Friendship Public Charter School in Washington, countered that "I'm against having a teacher with a gun in a building.

            "Teachers are emotional," he said. "People are emotional."

            Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son was killed at Sandy Hook in 2012, said that "schoolteachers have more than enough responsibilities right now than to have to have the awesome responsibility of using lethal force to take a life."

            His comments drew applause in the room.

            "Nobody wants to see a shoot-out in school," he said.

            "A deranged sociopath on his way to commit an act of murder in a school, knowing the outcome is going to be suicide, is not going to care if there is somebody there with a gun."


            https://www.newsmax.com/headline/par.../21/id/844722/

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              In the interest of saving the lives of children murdered by liberal fantasies of "gun free zones," we have someone proposing a solution that will work.

              FINALLY !!

              We know there are those that will hate this, they either;

              1. want more American children dead,

              or

              2. are beyond stupid and do not belong in ANY school for anything.

              --------------------------------------------------

              President Donald Trump on Wednesday called for concealed carry laws for teachers and ending gun-free school zones that triggered a strong debate within the audience at a White House listening session.

              "A teacher would have a concealed gun on them," Trump told more than 40 people in the State Dining Room. "They would go for special training.

              "They would be there — and you would no longer have a gun-free zone.

              "A gun-free zone to a maniac is, 'Let's go in and let's attack' — because bullets aren't coming back at us."

              Trump noted that, on average, a school shooting lasts about 3 minutes, with first responders generally arriving within as long as 8 minutes.

              "If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," the president said.

              ..

              One parent, Andrew Pollack, whose 18-year-old daughter, Meadow, was shot nine times at Stoneman, said that "we, as a country, failed our children.

              "This shouldn't happen.

              "We need to come together as a country and work on what is important," he said. "That is protecting our children in the schools.

              "That is the only thing that matters right now."

              President Trump acknowledged the comments, but his call for concealed carry and ending gun-free zones sparked a strong debate within the room.

              "I don't want the kids to know," Fred Abt, whose daughter, Carson, 17, is a Stoneman junior who survived the attack. "I don't want the shooters to know who has the firearms.

              "I don't want to have people walking around with firearms on the side.

              "But when they put the kids in the closets, I want the teacher to open that safe, pull out that firearm and be ready to do what needs to be done while you are waiting for the SWAT teams to come."

              Andrew Pollack Jr., Meadow's brother, who graduated from Stoneman in 2015, suggested enlisting retired police officers for "discreet" weapons training with teachers.

              But Curtis Lawrence, principal of Friendship Public Charter School in Washington, countered that "I'm against having a teacher with a gun in a building.

              "Teachers are emotional," he said. "People are emotional."

              Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son was killed at Sandy Hook in 2012, said that "schoolteachers have more than enough responsibilities right now than to have to have the awesome responsibility of using lethal force to take a life."

              His comments drew applause in the room.

              "Nobody wants to see a shoot-out in school," he said.

              "A deranged sociopath on his way to commit an act of murder in a school, knowing the outcome is going to be suicide, is not going to care if there is somebody there with a gun."


              https://www.newsmax.com/headline/par.../21/id/844722/
              On the Last Word last night Lawrence O'Donnell articulated many of the reasons arming teachers is such a stupid idea. I'll give you just one 76% of teachers are women. In elementary schools it's probably closer to 95% In the army I trained for one day with a .45 I could take the damn thing apart and put it back together fast enough to pass the test. When it came to hitting targets not so much. I can't imagine what the average kindergarten teacher would do with it I know Annie would bounce a ricochet off of the pot bellied stove and knocked the weapon out of the shooter's hands. Does any one have any real solutions?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                On the Last Word last night Lawrence O'Donnell articulated many of the reasons arming teachers is such a stupid idea. I'll give you just one 76% of teachers are women. In elementary schools it's probably closer to 95% In the army I trained for one day with a .45 I could take the damn thing apart and put it back together fast enough to pass the test. When it came to hitting targets not so much. I can't imagine what the average kindergarten teacher would do with it I know Annie would bounce a ricochet off of the pot bellied stove and knocked the weapon out of the shooter's hands. Does any one have any real solutions?
                You're aware that you're swimming upstream against the current trends and thoughts concerning women are you not ?

                Women are smart enough, strong enough and good enough to do ANYTHING men do ! They deserve equal pay for the same work etc etc..

                They can even sign up to be navy seals now !

                https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/us/fi...rnd/index.html

                and they're certainly not so incapable that they can't handle firearms.!

                You're saying what is today very politically incorrect ! That women aren't as capable as men ??

                You can't say that today ! It's not true anyways.

                If we want more dead kids, we can keep doing what we're doing and make sure our kids have no protection when they're in school.

                Gun free schools are great for that.... if we want dead kids.

                If we don't, say we want "mass shootings" of all kinds reduced. . and fewer dead kids, not more ! Here's an idea.

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                On account of the Rule of Journalism that permits the word "immigrant" to be used only in sentences with the word "valedictorian," you may not have heard of some of these mass shootings at all.

                1) Omar Mateen, son of Afghan immigrants, killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016.

                2) First- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire at a community center Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2, 2015, killing 14 people.

                3) English immigrant Christopher Harper-Mercer killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in southwest Oregon on Oct. 1, 2015.

                4) Kuwaiti immigrant Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed five people in attacks on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015.

                5) Second-generation Malaysian immigrant Elliot Rodger killed six people on May 23, 2014, around the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

                6) Second-generation immigrant John Zawahri opened fire at his Southern California home and later at the campus of Santa Monica College on June 7, 2013, killing five in all. (The New York Times never mentioned that he was the child of Lebanese immigrants. The Times didn't even mention that his father used to beat up his mother, despite that paper's usual heightened interest in stories about men being mean to women.)

                7) Cuban immigrant Pedro Alberto Vargas fatally shot six people in his apartment complex in Hialeah, Florida, on July 26, 2013.

                8) Probable Barbadian immigrant Aaron Alexis shot and killed 12 people inside the Washington Navy Yard on Sept. 16, 2013. (See this.)

                9) South Korean immigrant One L. Goh opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California, killing seven people on April 2, 2012.

                10) Mexican immigrant Eduardo Sencion shot up an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, on Sept. 6, 2011, killing four people -- three National Guardsmen and a 67-year-old woman.

                11) Second-generation immigrant Nidal Malik Hasan, son of Palestinian immigrants, killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2009.

                12) Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong shot up the Binghamton, New York, American Civic Association on April 3, 2009, killing 13.

                13) Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic fatally shot five people at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City on Feb. 12, 2007.

                14) Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean immigrant, slaughtered 32 people at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007.

                15) Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang killed six hunters in northern Wisconsin on Nov. 21, 2004.

                16) Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia shot up the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, killing six of his former co-workers.

                An immigration moratorium and widespread deportations would not only cut mass shootings in half, but it would also free up the FBI's time to focus on these delusional young men with the terrifying stare, who hear voices no one else hears.

                Young men like Nikolas Cruz.


                http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/20...html#read_more

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  I have to agree.

                  If eighteen is considered old enough, mature enough to "consent to sexual activity" even act in porno, fight in wars & get killed etc. then what is the argument again for restricting gun purchases to 21 ? Seems pretty pointless anyways... what ? Are young people who are given guns by relatives all of a sudden going to be "lawbreakers" ? There are younger people all over America that have access too, or own some type of firearm. This age restriction deal will accomplish nothing .. it won't even make us "feel like we did something" ... unless we have a room temperature IQ

                  Want to stop schools from being slaughter houses ? The solution is very simple.
                  Don't get me wrong, I was establishing a basic principle. That whatever age we choose, one should be treated fully and equally to all other citizens. I would argue that with the exception of those in military service, if you can't drink or buy a gun until you are 21, then you shouldn't be able to vote, not lowering the ages to drink or buy a gun to 18. Either option comports with the principle, but I think the sounder argument is with the age of 21 for all of these things.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    On the Last Word last night Lawrence O'Donnell articulated many of the reasons arming teachers is such a stupid idea. I'll give you just one 76% of teachers are women. In elementary schools it's probably closer to 95% In the army I trained for one day with a .45 I could take the damn thing apart and put it back together fast enough to pass the test. When it came to hitting targets not so much. I can't imagine what the average kindergarten teacher would do with it I know Annie would bounce a ricochet off of the pot bellied stove and knocked the weapon out of the shooter's hands. Does any one have any real solutions?

                    Arming teachers is probably a bad idea. Although if you had a few who were trained, like military people who were not desk sitters, it might be a good backup. But the only sensible security is school lock down, as they did when my wife taught in alternative school here, in a dangerous area of town, our northside ghetto. If I were to drop by and visit, she would notify the office when she entered into the school that I would be coming by at such and such a time and they would let me in from one of the locked entrances. The doors would lock, and it was like you see in some hospitals, a button to press on the outside which would buzz in the principles office or security. You would be then allowed in by the security guard. I cannot think of a better way to minimize these school shootings and it is common sense. Yes, it would cost money, to refit an older school for this security measure, but going by the way this new country school looks a few miles from me, since it looks like a prison, no doubt you could secure these easily and lock it down during school hours.

                    If we are serious about this issue, and not just using it as a political football, a wedge, to exploit partisan driven division, this is a no brainer. It should have been done years ago. It would be more effective than any new gun law that would be passed. And because of that, it probably will not be used. Solving problems is not exactly the forte of either party these days. They would rather fight with no sensible solution, for political reasons, as they struggle to see which head of the one party system will be in power. Power is a big deal to these politicians. In fact, it is number 1, number 1, USA, USA.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


                      Arming teachers is probably a bad idea. Although if you had a few who were trained, like military people who were not desk sitters, it might be a good backup. But the only sensible security is school lock down, as they did when my wife taught in alternative school here, in a dangerous area of town, our northside ghetto. If I were to drop by and visit, she would notify the office when she entered into the school that I would be coming by at such and such a time and they would let me in from one of the locked entrances. The doors would lock, and it was like you see in some hospitals, a button to press on the outside which would buzz in the principles office or security. You would be then allowed in by the security guard. I cannot think of a better way to minimize these school shootings and it is common sense. Yes, it would cost money, to refit an older school for this security measure, but going by the way this new country school looks a few miles from me, since it looks like a prison, no doubt you could secure these easily and lock it down during school hours.

                      If we are serious about this issue, and not just using it as a political football, a wedge, to exploit partisan driven division, this is a no brainer. It should have been done years ago. It would be more effective than any new gun law that would be passed. And because of that, it probably will not be used. Solving problems is not exactly the forte of either party these days. They would rather fight with no sensible solution, for political reasons, as they struggle to see which head of the one party system will be in power. Power is a big deal to these politicians. In fact, it is number 1, number 1, USA, USA.
                      How many teachers do reckon have military service in their background? The only reason we had any 50 years ago was because of the damn draft.All the military training I received was in the infantry. Given the unique requirements of my teaching job a gun tucked away in my desk wouldn't have been much help. None of my teaching was done anywhere near my desk and I wouldn't be able to carry it on me given the physical nature of the job. I t takes a special kind mindset to shoot and kill someone even in self defense.The fact is children would be in as much danger from the good guys with guns as the bad guy. It's only a political football because we have one party that is weded to the gun lobby.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Arming teachers is probably a bad idea. Although if you had a few who were trained, like military people who were not desk sitters, it might be a good backup. But the only sensible security is school lock down, as they did when my wife taught in alternative school here, in a dangerous area of town, our northside ghetto. If I were to drop by and visit, she would notify the office when she entered into the school that I would be coming by at such and such a time and they would let me in from one of the locked entrances. The doors would lock, and it was like you see in some hospitals, a button to press on the outside which would buzz in the principles office or security. You would be then allowed in by the security guard. I cannot think of a better way to minimize these school shootings and it is common sense. Yes, it would cost money, to refit an older school for this security measure, but going by the way this new country school looks a few miles from me, since it looks like a prison, no doubt you could secure these easily and lock it down during school hours.

                        If we are serious about this issue, and not just using it as a political football, a wedge, to exploit partisan driven division, this is a no brainer. It should have been done years ago. It would be more effective than any new gun law that would be passed. And because of that, it probably will not be used. Solving problems is not exactly the forte of either party these days. They would rather fight with no sensible solution, for political reasons, as they struggle to see which head of the one party system will be in power. Power is a big deal to these politicians. In fact, it is number 1, number 1, USA, USA.
                        Which underlines what is wrong with us today.

                        That we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves like groups of 3 and 4 year olds, than solving problems like dead school kids, shows a deep sickness.

                        The killings in our schools are upsetting.

                        How we're reacting to them is worse, it's just gross.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


                          Arming teachers is probably a bad idea. Although if you had a few who were trained, like military people who were not desk sitters, it might be a good backup. But the only sensible security is school lock down, as they did when my wife taught in alternative school here, in a dangerous area of town, our northside ghetto. If I were to drop by and visit, she would notify the office when she entered into the school that I would be coming by at such and such a time and they would let me in from one of the locked entrances. The doors would lock, and it was like you see in some hospitals, a button to press on the outside which would buzz in the principles office or security. You would be then allowed in by the security guard. I cannot think of a better way to minimize these school shootings and it is common sense. Yes, it would cost money, to refit an older school for this security measure, but going by the way this new country school looks a few miles from me, since it looks like a prison, no doubt you could secure these easily and lock it down during school hours.

                          If we are serious about this issue, and not just using it as a political football, a wedge, to exploit partisan driven division, this is a no brainer. It should have been done years ago. It would be more effective than any new gun law that would be passed. And because of that, it probably will not be used. Solving problems is not exactly the forte of either party these days. They would rather fight with no sensible solution, for political reasons, as they struggle to see which head of the one party system will be in power. Power is a big deal to these politicians. In fact, it is number 1, number 1, USA, USA.
                          That might work. It would certainly work better than giving a smoke wagon to a teacher who is a lot less prepared than a veteran police officer. Let's suppose the "immediate response" plan is pushed anyway, and there are enough qualified concealed-carry in a given school. There is a lot of training for both law enforcement and CC staff in the school to avoid mistaken identify and cross-fire tragedies. Link:
                          This also creates more problems for law enforcement trying to sort out the good guys with guns vs. bad guys with guns when they arrive on scene. All this can cause needless delays and allow the terrorists to kill more people while it is being sorted out.
                          https://www.policeone.com/active-sho...er-situations/
                          =This from a guy who favors this strategy, and (apparently) makes extra coin training people on CC. An internet search shows "good vs. bad guy" confusion has already resulted in death and injury. The first time this confusion happens in a school setting, it will be used by the anti-gun lobby. If or when it goes the other way, and a CC staff helps stop a shooter, that will be used by the pro-gun lobby. Around and 'round we go.

                          In the meantime, I propose ideas that will minimize the chance of loony shooter getting into the school in the first place. BD's choice, much improved mental health flags and training for all who use the school grounds. I can't object to the strategy of having extra (armed) security in our public schools -that's probably going to be pushed thru anyway. What I object to is using that strategy as the first "solution" to school shooters. The major solution has to be prevention. Stopping a shooter after he kills "only" 2 or 3 kids is a failure. It's a failure even if he shoots no one, but is dropped by school security after he draws a firearm.
                          The first choice: Prevention by identifying the disturbed person and removing him before he commits harm (to self and others). It can be done, and was done just recently. The second choice: Barriers, the secure school that BD describes. The last choice: Wait for the shooter and stop him, before he kills (or kills "too many"). Let's see how Congress sets their priorities...

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            That might work. It would certainly work better than giving a smoke wagon to a teacher who is a lot less prepared than a veteran police officer. Let's suppose the "immediate response" plan is pushed anyway, and there are enough qualified concealed-carry in a given school. There is a lot of training for both law enforcement and CC staff in the school to avoid mistaken identify and cross-fire tragedies. Link:
                            https://www.policeone.com/active-sho...er-situations/
                            =This from a guy who favors this strategy, and (apparently) makes extra coin training people on CC. An internet search shows "good vs. bad guy" confusion has already resulted in death and injury. The first time this confusion happens in a school setting, it will be used by the anti-gun lobby. If or when it goes the other way, and a CC staff helps stop a shooter, that will be used by the pro-gun lobby. Around and 'round we go.

                            In the meantime, I propose ideas that will minimize the chance of loony shooter getting into the school in the first place. BD's choice, much improved mental health flags and training for all who use the school grounds. I can't object to the strategy of having extra (armed) security in our public schools -that's probably going to be pushed thru anyway. What I object to is using that strategy as the first "solution" to school shooters. The major solution has to be prevention. Stopping a shooter after he kills "only" 2 or 3 kids is a failure. It's a failure even if he shoots no one, but is dropped by school security after he draws a firearm.
                            The first choice: Prevention by identifying the disturbed person and removing him before he commits harm (to self and others). It can be done, and was done just recently. The second choice: Barriers, the secure school that BD describes. The last choice: Wait for the shooter and stop him, before he kills (or kills "too many"). Let's see how Congress sets their priorities...
                            Good lick Trumps budget slashes funds for school safety and mental health. Let's now hear from the experts.LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw






                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Why wouldn't the United States be Championing the stupidest idea for dealing with school shootings. That idea of course is arming teachers. Just shut up Donald and get back to your tweeting.No one wants to hear your lame BS.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                                Why wouldn't the United States be Championing the stupidest idea for dealing with school shootings. That idea of course is arming teachers. Just shut up Donald and get back to your tweeting.No one wants to hear your lame BS.
                                My guess on the origin of high velocity gats in classrooms: Hollywood. And lots of Cocaine and/or Booze.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X